On April 06, 2022 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bradford Brett,
Linda Johnson-Brett,
and
A.O. Smith Corporation.,,
Avon Products, Inc.,,
Bird Incorporated,,
Brenntag North America, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Mineral Pigment Solutions, Inc., As Successor In Interest To Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Burnham Holdings Llc,
Burnham, Llc, Individually And As Successor To Burnham Corporation,,
Carrier Corporation,,
Chanel, Inc.,,
Clinique Laboratories, Llc,,
Colgate Palmolive Company,
Compudyne Corporation, Individually And As Successor To York-Shipley,
Conopco, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Cheseborough-Ponds, Inc.,,
Coty, Inc.,,
Crane Co.,,
Crown Boiler Co.,,
Dap, Inc.,,
Ecr International, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Dunkirk, Dunkirk Boilers And Utica Boilers,,
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Evyan Perfumes, Inc.,,
Estee Lauder, Inc.,,
Estee Lauder International, Inc.,,
Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., F K A Dunham-Bush, Inc.,,
Friend Lumber Company Of Lowell,,
General Electric Company,,
Goulds Pumps, Inc.,,
Grinnell Llc,,
Honeywell International, Inc., F K A Allied Signal, Inc. Bendix,,
Itt Corporation, Individually, And As Successor In Interest To Bell & Gossett And Hoffman Specialty,,
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.,,
Keeler-Dorr-Oliver Boiler Company,,
Macys, Inc.,,
Mineral And Pigment Solutions, Inc., F K A Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, A K A 3M Company,,
New Yorker Boiler Co., Inc.,,
Paramount Global F K A Viacomcbs, Inc. F K A Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation, F K A Westinghouse Electric Corporation,,
Parfums De Couer Ltd,
Pecora Corp.,,
Pfizer, Inc., Individually And As Successor To Coty Inc.,,
Revlon, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Jean Nate, Evyan Perfumes, Inc. And Enjoli, Inc.,,
Rheem Manufacturing Co., Rudd Water Heater Division,,
R.W. Beckett Corp.,,
Schneider Electric Usa, Inc., Formerly Known As Square D Company,
Slant Fin Corporation,,
Sos Products Co. Inc.,,
Spirax Sarco, Inc., Individually And As Successor To Sarco Company,,
Union Carbide Corporation,,
Weil Mclain, A Division Of The Marley Wylain Company,,
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
for Torts - Asbestos
in the District Court of Monroe County.
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM INDEX NO. E2022002698
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 3822834
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 39
KUSH SHUKLA
1040 6th Avenue, Suite 12B Instrument: EXHIBIT(S)
New York, NY 10018
Control #: 202404121921
Index #: E2022002698
Date: 04/12/2024
JOHNSON-BRETT, LINDA Time: 4:30:08 PM
BRETT, BRADFORD
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION.,
AVON PRODUCTS, INC.,
BIRD INCORPORATED,
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS,
INC., as successor in interest to WHITTAKER, CLARK &
DANIELS, INC.,
BURNHAM, LLC, individually and as successor to BURNHAM
CORPORATION,
Total Fees Paid: $0.00
Employee:
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE
WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
JAMIE ROMEO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK
202404121921 Index #
INDEX : E2022002698
NO. E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
EXHIBIT 89
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 14:3–39, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1093-7404 print / 1521-6950 online
DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2011.556045
APPLYING DEFINITIONS OF “ASBESTOS” TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND “LOW-DOSE”
EXPOSURE LEVELS AND HEALTH EFFECTS, PARTICULARLY MALIGNANT
MESOTHELIOMA
B. W. Case1∗#, J. L. Abraham2∗#, G. Meeker3, F. D. Pooley4, K. E. Pinkerton5
1
Department of Pathology and School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Québec,
Canada
2
Department of Pathology, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse,
New York, USA
3
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
4
Department of Medical Genetics, Haematology & Pathology, Cardiff University School of
Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
5
Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis, California, USA
Although asbestos research has been ongoing for decades, this increased knowledge has not
led to consensus in many areas of the field. Two such areas of controversy include the specific
definitions of asbestos, and limitations in understanding exposure-response relationships for
various asbestos types and exposure levels and disease. This document reviews the current
regulatory and mineralogical definitions and how variability in these definitions has led to
difficulties in the discussion and comparison of both experimental laboratory and human
epidemiological studies for asbestos. This review also examines the issues of exposure mea-
surement in both animal and human studies, and discusses the impact of these issues on
determination of cause for asbestos-related diseases. Limitations include the lack of detailed
characterization and limited quantification of the fibers in most studies. Associated data gaps
and research needs are also enumerated in this review.
Arguably, more is known about exposure to 10,502 references mentioning “asbestos.” This
and disease produced by “asbestos” than for is a large underestimate of “all articles,” how-
any other toxic material or group of materi- ever; Google Scholar returns 318,000 citations
als. A current search of the National Library that contain the word “asbestos” in the text.
of Medicine’s database, for example, yields However, more knowledge has not led to
*This author has disclosed a potential conflict of interest as described by one or more of the following: He/She has acted and/or
is currently acting as an expert witness or consultant for law firms representing plaintiffs and/or defendants in asbestos litigation and
compensation board proceedings, and has been a paid or unpaid consultant to regulatory and medical agencies and compensation
boards in North America, including but not limited to NIEHS, EPA, ATSDR, ATS, NGOs and individual and collective citizen groups
concerned with asbestos exposure and disease.
# This author has disclosed a potential conflict of interest as described by one or more of the following: He/She may have also
received (and may also apply in future for) competitive-funding research grants from U.S. publicly financed, peer-reviewed grant approval
process agencies concerning asbestos exposure and disease, including topics covered in all aspects of the workshop, including but not
limited to research support from NIEHS.
The authors thank Dr. Phil Cook, Dr. Ron Dodson, Dr. Ann Aust, Dr. Urmila Kodavanti, and Amy Madl for an in-depth review
and discussion of this document. This state-of-the-science review document was created in support of the NIEHS workshop “Asbestos:
A Science-Based Examination of the Mode of Action of Asbestos and Related Mineral Fibers.” However, the views expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and/or policies of the federal agencies involved in its
production (U.S. Geological Society, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health).
Address correspondence to Dr. B. W. Case, Department of Pathology and School of Environment, McGill University, 1650 Cedar
Avenue, Room C3-157, Montreal, Québec, H3G 1A4, Canada. E-mail: bruce.case@mcgill.ca
3
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
4 B. W. CASE ET AL.
more consensus about exposure-disease rela- with an asbestiform growth habit or outward
tionships or, in particular, about those aspects appearance of the mineral. The term “asbesti-
of exposure, whether physical or chemical, form” describes a growth habit exemplified by
that are the most important disease determi- bundles of thin, long, separable fibers that are
nants. Therefore, there is a considerable need often flexible and are resistant to heat and
to identify what is already known with rea- chemicals. As with other minerals, different
sonable certainty, with an emphasis on quality “habits” can in some cases share the same
studies rather than cataloguing of studies; what name, elemental composition, and chemical
may be debatable but important (data gaps); structure, as in the case of asbestiform and
and how (and if) additional research can con- nonasbestiform amphiboles such as “tremo-
tribute to filling the latter. The wide variety lite.” The mineralogical definitions in current
of past, available information actually makes use for “asbestos” are based on the proper-
this task more difficult because the available ties that make (or made) the material valuable
information covers a long period of time and as a commodity, namely, long, thin, flexible
measurement methodology and animal mod- fibers with high tensile strength and resis-
els have varied considerably in quality over the tance to heat and chemicals. In the regulatory
years. There is considerable utility in whittling arena, six minerals were originally nominated
the sources of information down to the most to carry the asbestos label (U.S. Department
essential and informative studies rather than of Labor, 1975; IARC, 1977). These include
looking at the literature as a whole, although it is chrysotile, crocidolite (riebeckite asbestos),
necessary to do the latter to identify the former. amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos),
Further, since “asbestos exposure” was greatest anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and
in the past, early studies (particularly of heav- actinolite asbestos. Of these, only the first
ily exposed occupational cohorts) show a much three were of major significance industri-
heavier burden of disease and are likely to be ally, although both anthophyllite asbestos and
more informative as to exposure-response rela- tremolite asbestos have been mined in the
tionships, even if they lack the sophistication United States (UICC, 1965). In 1965, the
of more recent studies. Recently, considerable UICC recommended that “Among the countries
efforts have been made to explore the past in which and between which studies should,
work in the context of new methodology, in if possible, be made are Australia (crocido-
terms of both exposure assessment and more lite), Canada (chrysotile), Cyprus (chrysotile),
accurate determination of disease. This discus- Finland (anthophyllite), Italy (chrysotile), South
sion focuses on the “low end of exposure,” Africa (amosite, chrysotile, and crocidolite), the
however defined (see next section), which adds United States of America (chrysotile and tremo-
its own difficulties. lite), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(chrysotile)” (UICC, 1965; Selikoff & Churg,
1965).
DEFINITIONS OF “ASBESTOS” The inadequate and incomplete definition
Asbestos is a generic term used to identify a of “asbestos” has resulted, as noted by an IARC
number of well-known silicate minerals that are Consensus panel, in “taxonomic confusion and
capable of producing thin and flexible fibers lack of standardized operating definitions for
when crushed. Some of these minerals were fibers.” “‘Asbestos’ is often inappropriately used
of significant industrial and economic impor- as a generic, homogeneous rubric, and even
tance and have been used widely. The term when an asbestos fiber type is specified, its
“asbestos” has no definitive mineralogical sig- source is rarely stated” (Kane et al., 1996).
nificance but is applied to several minerals, Mineral fibers, which are grouped under the
which under certain circumstances crystallize rubric, have been divided in many ways, but
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 5
two are most common: regulatory definitions Diseases are very often attributed to
and mineralogical definitions. Regrettably, nei- “asbestos” and not to the individual minerals
ther of these definitions corresponds to the that “asbestos” defines. This has a serious effect
common understanding of what “asbestos” is to upon the interpretation of the mode of action
most observers, and to some degree, these two of the individual asbestos minerals in the pro-
approaches sometimes contradict one another. duction of related diseases. There are other
minerals that produce fibrous (“elongate”) dust
particles, having similarity in variable physical
Asbestos Regulatory Definitions
and chemical properties to asbestos. A num-
g
Regulatory y definitions specify
p y the subset of ber of them may produce the same diseases
minerals mainlyy used in commerce, as noted as asbestos under certain conditions. A full
earlier, for purposes
p p y g them and
of identifying discussion of these many minerals is beyond
limitingg human exposure.p In addition to min- the scope of this paper, but one example
eral species
p identification based on chem- is erionite (fibrous zeolite), a fibrous min-
istryy and crystal
y structure, regulatory
g y definitions eral shown to produce mesothelioma in great
specify
p y physical
p y p
parameters, g
such as length excess in both human epidemiological and
and width, which apply pp y to and define parti- laboratory animal studies (Baris et al., 1981;
cles that meet specific counting rules. This is 1987; Sebastien et al., 1981; Maltoni et al.,
frequently done by identifying approved ana- 1982; Wagner et al., 1985; Kelsey et al., 1986;
lytical methods, such as ISO 10312 (ISO, 1995) Simonato et al., 1989; Metintaset al., 1999;
or NIOSH 7400 (NIOSH, 2003), that clearly Emri et al., 2002; Baris & Grandjean, 2006;
define for the analyst which particles should Carbone et al., 2007). The mineral does occur
and should not be counted. Historically, the naturally in North America, was reported to
most commonly used definitions (e.g., those produce disease (Kliment et al., 2009), and is
used by the Occupational Safety and Health currently under investigation by the U.S. EPA in
Administration [OSHA], National Institute for some locations (Below et al., this issue).
Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], and Another example is “balangeroite,” a
World Health Organization [WHO]) for a reg- mineral having been described by some
ulated form of “asbestos” are limited to those as “an asbestiform fibrous silicate (exhibit-
structures longer than 5 μm and with a defined ing) cytotoxic and oxidative properties simi-
length-to-width (aspect) ratio of 3:1 or some- lar to those exerted by crocidolite asbestos”
times 5:1; rarer definitions (e.g., AHERA as (Gazzano et al., 2005). It is associated with
used by the U.S. Environmental Protection chrysotile in the Italian Balangero deposit
Agency [EPA]) include different length param- (Belluso & Ferraris, 1991) and is believed
eters. Concentrations are sometimes specified by some to exert for chrysotile miners and
in regulations; for example, some U.S. EPA reg- millers there carcinogenic effects similar to
ulations exculpate samples that have less than those produced by tremolite associated with
1% asbestos mineral by weight. However, most the Québec chrysotile deposit at the orig-
regulations are based on numbers of count- inal (Bell/King/Beaver/Johnson) complex in
able p particles pper unit volume of air. Generallyy Thetford Mines (McDonald et al., 1997; Case
the regulatory
g y definitions have evolved his- et al., 1997; Case & McDonald, 2008).
toricallyy for practical
p reasons related to the
analytical
y sensitivities of the instruments used
Asbestos Mineralogical Definitions
in regulatory
g y measurements. As such, theyy
mayy include categories g that do not produce
p An extensive literature exists describing the
health effects or, conversely, may exclude some mineralogy of asbestos and asbestos-related
that do. minerals (Speil & Leineweber, 1969; Zoltai,
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
6 B. W. CASE ET AL.
1981; Pooley, 1981, 1987; Veblen & Wylie, fibrous riebeckite rather than crocidolite, be
1993; Leake, 1997, 2004; Neuendorf et al., p
used where possible).
2005, Gunter, et al., 2007). Mineralogical def- The distinction between the mineralogi- g
initions appear to contradict or be confused g p is important
cal groups p when consideringg the
with those that are regulatory, medical or aetiologygy of asbestos-related diseases because
industrial (catalogued in Lowers & Meeker, p
it demonstrates that the potential of asbestos
2002). While the most useful definitions would p
to produce disease is not confined to one
be interdisciplinary and unchanging, it has y
crystalline g p g The
mineral or chemical grouping.
recently been suggested that “the rigor of g
biological p
potential of asbestos is most likelyy
established mineralogical terminology is criti- directlyy related to the abilityy of the minerals to
cal to the research process and the ultimate p
form fibrous dust particles, g
or elongated min-
understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity” p
eral particles p
in the parlance of the NIOSH
(Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2009). Inevitably Roadmap. p This capability
p y to produce
p fibrous
though, these are anything but unchanging, p
particles is inherent in the chemical compo- p
particularly with respect to the classification p y
sition and physical structure of the minerals
of amphibole minerals (IOM, 2009, Leake, concerned and is a result of the minerals’ para- p
1997; 2004, Hawthorne & Oberti, 2007). IOM g
genetic historyy or formation regime.
g However,
(2009) suggested in reviewing the “NIOSH it is noteworthyy that comparably
p y sized (includ-
Roadmap” (IOM, 2009, NIOSH, 2010) that: ingg length
g and aspectp p
ratio) particles p
produced
byy comminution of nonfibrous analogs g of the
Rigor in terminology may eventually be applied asbestos minerals have not been thoroughly g y
consistently in the regulatory setting. In creating a p
tested for toxic potential and, unless and until
new acceptable paradigm for risk assessment in this theyy are, manyy health scientists believe that
area, the Roadmap should not continue the his- such analogs g need to be treated with simi-
torical use of ambiguous terminology occasionally lar caution, as longg as theyy meet minimum
found in some existing standards and guidelines. To
ensure proper scientific terms, a modern technical
q
requirements g In summary,
for fiber length. y “For
glossary or other standard reference text, appropri- g
regulatory y and health assessment purposes
p p ...
ate for the field of study, should be used and cited. p
there is no evidence that potentially y affected
For example, the American Geological Institute cells can distinguishg between ‘asbestiform’
Glossary of Geology may be appropriate for many and ‘non-asbestiform’ fibers having equivalent
of the mineralogical or geological terms (Neuendorf
dimensions” (Case, 1991, p. 357).
et al., 2005). Other reference texts should be con-
sulted for words not found in the AGI glossary or
for toxicological or epidemiological terms. Words or Amphiboles1
terms that are not scientifically or technically valid
should be removed from the glossary and the text. The crystal structure of amphibole min-
(IOM, 2009, p. 34) erals, including the asbestiform varieties, is a
double chain structure of linked SiO4 tetrahe-
dra, which lie parallel to the c crystallographic
The basic chemical and crystal structural
axis. Pairs of double chains are bound together
properties of the primary regulated asbestos
with bridging cations to form a structural unit.
minerals are well known to research work-
The cations, which occur in the various struc-
ers involved in the study of asbestos-related
tural sites, differ markedly among the amphi-
disease. These minerals belong to two dis-
bole minerals, so much so that the current
tinct mineralogical groups: chrysotile being a
mineralogical classification of the members in
member of the serpentine mineral group; and
this mineral group is made primarily on the
crocidolite, amosite, tremolite asbestos, actino-
basis of the cation content of specific crys-
lite asbestos, and anthophyllite asbestos being
tallographic sites (Leake et al., 1997, 2004).
members of the amphibole mineral group
(although as noted earlier it has been recom-
mended that actual mineralogical names, e.g., 1 See Pooley. (1987).
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 7
A general formula for amphiboles can be Hutchinson et al., 1975). The particular mor-
written as: phology of amphibole asbestos particles is,
therefore, mainly the result of the nucleation
and preferential growth of crystallites in the
A0−1 B2 C5 T8 O22 W2 fiber axis or c crystallographic direction. This
is a feature that is often referred to in the
where T is the tetrahedral site generally con- description of hand specimens of asbestos ore
taining Si but also some amounts of Al, Ti, and as cross-veined or slip-veined fiber. Asbestiform
Fe3+ ; C commonly contains Mg, Al, Ti, Fe, fibers can also form by in situ alteration of other
and Mn; B commonly contains Ca, Mg, and minerals in the natural environment (Meeker
Na; A commonly contains Na and K; and W et al., 2003). It should be noted, however, that
commonly contains OH, F, and Cl. In nature a althoughg all amphibole
p minerals have a similar
tremendous variety of elements can be incor- chainlike crystal
y structure, theyy do not all break
porated into the amphibole structure, making down to form fibrous p particles with the same
amphiboles an extremely diverse group with physical
p y dimensions as those of the fibrous and
more than 80 named species. asbestiform amphiboles.
p Asbestiform amphi- p
Of the most common asbestiform amphi- boles are ggeographically
g p y rare in comparison to
boles, crocidolite (fibrous reibeckite) is the th
heir nonasbestiform analogues.
their g
asbestiform variety of the amphibole mineral g
In general, for manyy reasons, amphibole p
reibeckite that has sodium, magnesium, and minerals most frequently
q y do not grow
g in fibrous
iron cations linking the SiO4 tetrahedral chains. or asbestiform habits. In addition, the same
Amosite (fibrous cummingtonite-grunerite) is amphibole
p minerals that do occur and are clas-
the asbestiform variety of the amphibole solid- sified as “asbestos” can also be found as sam-
solution series cummingtonite-grunerite that ples that are not fibrous or asbestiform in habit.
contains magnesium and iron cations in sim- Short (<5 μm length) tremolite particles, for
ilar linking sites. Tremolite asbestos and acti- example, were identified by transmission elec-
nolite asbestos are amphibole minerals that tron microscopy (almost always usually in the
contain calcium and form a solid-solution absence of detection of longer, thinner, asbesti-
series between the magnesium- and iron- form tremolite fibers) in the majority of lungs
rich end members. The iron-rich members of American schoolchildren examined (Case
of these calcic amphiboles are actinolite and et al., 1994).
ferro-actinolite. Anthophyllite asbestos contains g single
Larger g amphibole
p y
crystals can also
mainly magnesium with varying amounts of break readilyy alongg certain p planes p parallel to
iron in its structure. Single specimens of each y g p
the c crystallographic axis, resultingg in the
of the amphibole minerals are often con- formation of a good g p
prismatic cleavageg that
sidered to be part of a larger solid-solution readilyy produces
p elongated
g p
particles that are
series (Hawthorne & Oberti, 2007). The cations not fibrous or asbestiform. These particles p
located in the various structural sites of the have often been referred to in the asbestos
amphibole minerals help define their crystal communityy as cleavage g fragments.
g Note that
structures and their unit cell parameters. All p
these particles p
are produced byy breaking, g not
of the amphiboles that have been observed byy growth
g as are the fibrous and asbesti-
to grow in the fibrous habit have a mono- p
form amphibole p
particles. Some regulations
g
clinic crystal symmetry with the exception of p
(OSHA, 1992) specifically y exclude cleavage g
p y
anthophyllite, which is orthorhombic. g
fragments from asbestos countingg rules even
The elongate
g p
particles p
produced byy the thoughg manyy cleavage g fragments
g actuallyy meet
asbestiform amphibole
p minerals are consid- the countingg rule requirements.
q OSHA (1992)
ered to be generated
g byy the splitting
p g of also acknowledges g that it is commonlyy not pos- p
weaklyy bound crystallites
y or fibrils away from g
sible to distinguish g cleavage
single g fragments
g
an aggregate or bundle (Franco et al., 1970; from asbestiform fibers during analysis and
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
8 B. W. CASE ET AL.
p
provides gguidance to the analysty that “when in Chemically, chrysotile is a simple magnesium
doubt count.” Since the 1992 OSHA rulemak- silicate with a ratio of three magnesium cations
ingg regarding
g g cleavage
g fragments,
g considerable to two silicon atoms. However, iron, nickel,
debate has occurred in the asbestos commu- and manganese can replace magnesium in the
nityy regarding
g g the ppotential toxicityy of long,
g thin brucite layer, and aluminum can also replace
cleavage g fragments.
g NIOSH (NIOSH, 2010; silicon in small amounts. Traces of chromium,
IOM, 2009) still considers amphibole p cleav- cobalt, scandium, and the alkali earth metals are
g fragments
age g that meet countingg requirements
q also often incorporated in the brucite layer in
potentiallyy toxic and advises that they not be
p place of magnesium (Morgan & Holmes, 1971).
excluded during analysis. The other serpentine minerals lizardite and
antigorite cannot be chemically distinguished
from chrysotile. These other serpentine min-
Serpentines erals normally occur as massive fine-grained
The only serpentine mineral classified as specimens but can be found in a fibrous form
asbestos is chrysotile. However, it is not the that yields particles that more closely resemble
only mineral in the serpentine group that can particles of the amphibole asbestos minerals.
occur in a fibrous form. Mineralogical studies The serpentine minerals lizardite and antig-
of chrysotile samples (Whittaker, 1956a, 1956b, orite are far more common geologically than
1956c; Yada, 1967) showed it to be a sheet sil- chrysotile, which occurs in serpentine rocks
icate, the sheet structure of which is curled either in cross-veined or slip fiber formations.
into a cylindrical scroll-like form apparently The chrysotile fiber from cross-veined forma-
around a central capillary. The sheet struc- tions is more highly prized for its fiber length
ture of chrysotile is similar to that of the clay and purity.
mineral kaolinite, with magnesium rather than
aluminum in its structure. The structure is com-
posed of a layer of linked SiO4 tetrahedra with Characteristics of Asbestos Dust
all three oxygens at the base of each tetrahe- Particles
dra being shared. The second half of the sheet, There exists a great diversity in the size
the “brucite” layer, is attached at the apex of and morphology of dust particles produced
the tetrahedral. This layer contains magnesium, from the various asbestos-related minerals. The
oxygen, and hydroxyl ions octahedrally coor- most significant differences are those between
dinated, with oxygen being shared between the dust particles liberated from the serpentine
the brucite and silica layers. Due to a mis- asbestos chrysotile and the amphibole varieties
match in the dimensions of the brucite and silica of fibrous and asbestiform minerals. In gen-
layers, an extensive two-dimensional sheetlike eral, the fibrous amphiboles have fibers, which
structure can only be obtained by curvature are often rigid and parallel-sided. These fibers
of the sheet with the brucite layer outermost. have a quadrilateral or polygonal cross sec-
This is the reason for the scroll-like structure tion, with variable size distributions of width to
of chrysotile and the production of concen- length ratios that are dependent upon the min-
tric cylindrical tubes that we know as chrysotile eral type and its geological source. Amphibole
fibrils. When chrysotile fibrils are formed, a par- asbestos mineral from sources of a commer-
ticular radius of curvature may be the most cial grade produce dust containing fibers that
stable so that the diameter of fibrils, whatever are longer and finer than fibers from any other
their source geographically, is approximately the sources. A characteristic feature of the dust pro-
same, being of the order of 30 nm. The mis- duced by amphibole asbestos minerals from
match in the structure of serpentine mineral different geological sources is that they will con-
can be accommodated in other ways, which sist of fibers with a distinct size distribution of
have resulted in the formation of the other fiber diameters. This distinction in fiber size
serpentine minerals, lizardite, and antigorite. characteristics does not apply to variations in
202404121921 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 9
fiber length distributions of commercial-grade Council’s recent review of the NIOSH roadmap
asbestos, which are more closely related to the for research on asbestos fibers:
mechanical treatment that the mineral sample These changes g in mineral names far outpace p the
may have received in the production of the abilityy of the rulemakingg and legislative
g p
processes
dust. Fibrous amphibole samples can, there- in the United States and have caused considerable
fore, be found with identical chemistry and confusion and misunderstanding, g as is evident in
atomic structure but with a diversity of crys- recent legal
g actions relatingg to asbestos contamina-
tion in Libby,y Montana. [In addition], the correct
talline form or growth habit. This variation
application
pp p
of IMA amphibole nomenclature . . .
in crystal habit of a given species is almost requires
q analytical
y p
precision and accuracyy that is
certainly due to variations in the conditions ggenerallyy beyond
y the capability
p y of the standard
under which it crystallized. The morphology of asbestos analysis
y methods used for exposurep assess-
chrysotile asbestos dust particles is distinctive ment purposes.
p p p
This presents difficulties for the
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM INDEX NO. E2022002698 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # 3822834 Book Page CIVIL Return To: No. Pages: 39 KUSH SHUKLA 1040 6th Avenue, Suite 12B Instrument: EXHIBIT(S) New York, NY 10018 Control #: 202404121921 Index #: E2022002698 Date: 04/12/2024 JOHNSON-BRETT, LINDA Time: 4:30:08 PM BRETT, BRADFORD A.O. SMITH CORPORATION., AVON PRODUCTS, INC., BIRD INCORPORATED, BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., as successor in interest to WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., BURNHAM, LLC, individually and as successor to BURNHAM CORPORATION, Total Fees Paid: $0.00 Employee: State of New York MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) & SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE. JAMIE ROMEO MONROE COUNTY CLERK 202404121921 Index # INDEX : E2022002698 NO. E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 EXHIBIT 89 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 14:3–39, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1093-7404 print / 1521-6950 online DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2011.556045 APPLYING DEFINITIONS OF “ASBESTOS” TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND “LOW-DOSE” EXPOSURE LEVELS AND HEALTH EFFECTS, PARTICULARLY MALIGNANT MESOTHELIOMA B. W. Case1∗#, J. L. Abraham2∗#, G. Meeker3, F. D. Pooley4, K. E. Pinkerton5 1 Department of Pathology and School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada 2 Department of Pathology, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, USA 4 Department of Medical Genetics, Haematology & Pathology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom 5 Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis, California, USA Although asbestos research has been ongoing for decades, this increased knowledge has not led to consensus in many areas of the field. Two such areas of controversy include the specific definitions of asbestos, and limitations in understanding exposure-response relationships for various asbestos types and exposure levels and disease. This document reviews the current regulatory and mineralogical definitions and how variability in these definitions has led to difficulties in the discussion and comparison of both experimental laboratory and human epidemiological studies for asbestos. This review also examines the issues of exposure mea- surement in both animal and human studies, and discusses the impact of these issues on determination of cause for asbestos-related diseases. Limitations include the lack of detailed characterization and limited quantification of the fibers in most studies. Associated data gaps and research needs are also enumerated in this review. Arguably, more is known about exposure to 10,502 references mentioning “asbestos.” This and disease produced by “asbestos” than for is a large underestimate of “all articles,” how- any other toxic material or group of materi- ever; Google Scholar returns 318,000 citations als. A current search of the National Library that contain the word “asbestos” in the text. of Medicine’s database, for example, yields However, more knowledge has not led to *This author has disclosed a potential conflict of interest as described by one or more of the following: He/She has acted and/or is currently acting as an expert witness or consultant for law firms representing plaintiffs and/or defendants in asbestos litigation and compensation board proceedings, and has been a paid or unpaid consultant to regulatory and medical agencies and compensation boards in North America, including but not limited to NIEHS, EPA, ATSDR, ATS, NGOs and individual and collective citizen groups concerned with asbestos exposure and disease. # This author has disclosed a potential conflict of interest as described by one or more of the following: He/She may have also received (and may also apply in future for) competitive-funding research grants from U.S. publicly financed, peer-reviewed grant approval process agencies concerning asbestos exposure and disease, including topics covered in all aspects of the workshop, including but not limited to research support from NIEHS. The authors thank Dr. Phil Cook, Dr. Ron Dodson, Dr. Ann Aust, Dr. Urmila Kodavanti, and Amy Madl for an in-depth review and discussion of this document. This state-of-the-science review document was created in support of the NIEHS workshop “Asbestos: A Science-Based Examination of the Mode of Action of Asbestos and Related Mineral Fibers.” However, the views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and/or policies of the federal agencies involved in its production (U.S. Geological Society, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Address correspondence to Dr. B. W. Case, Department of Pathology and School of Environment, McGill University, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Room C3-157, Montreal, Québec, H3G 1A4, Canada. E-mail: bruce.case@mcgill.ca 3 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 4 B. W. CASE ET AL. more consensus about exposure-disease rela- with an asbestiform growth habit or outward tionships or, in particular, about those aspects appearance of the mineral. The term “asbesti- of exposure, whether physical or chemical, form” describes a growth habit exemplified by that are the most important disease determi- bundles of thin, long, separable fibers that are nants. Therefore, there is a considerable need often flexible and are resistant to heat and to identify what is already known with rea- chemicals. As with other minerals, different sonable certainty, with an emphasis on quality “habits” can in some cases share the same studies rather than cataloguing of studies; what name, elemental composition, and chemical may be debatable but important (data gaps); structure, as in the case of asbestiform and and how (and if) additional research can con- nonasbestiform amphiboles such as “tremo- tribute to filling the latter. The wide variety lite.” The mineralogical definitions in current of past, available information actually makes use for “asbestos” are based on the proper- this task more difficult because the available ties that make (or made) the material valuable information covers a long period of time and as a commodity, namely, long, thin, flexible measurement methodology and animal mod- fibers with high tensile strength and resis- els have varied considerably in quality over the tance to heat and chemicals. In the regulatory years. There is considerable utility in whittling arena, six minerals were originally nominated the sources of information down to the most to carry the asbestos label (U.S. Department essential and informative studies rather than of Labor, 1975; IARC, 1977). These include looking at the literature as a whole, although it is chrysotile, crocidolite (riebeckite asbestos), necessary to do the latter to identify the former. amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), Further, since “asbestos exposure” was greatest anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and in the past, early studies (particularly of heav- actinolite asbestos. Of these, only the first ily exposed occupational cohorts) show a much three were of major significance industri- heavier burden of disease and are likely to be ally, although both anthophyllite asbestos and more informative as to exposure-response rela- tremolite asbestos have been mined in the tionships, even if they lack the sophistication United States (UICC, 1965). In 1965, the of more recent studies. Recently, considerable UICC recommended that “Among the countries efforts have been made to explore the past in which and between which studies should, work in the context of new methodology, in if possible, be made are Australia (crocido- terms of both exposure assessment and more lite), Canada (chrysotile), Cyprus (chrysotile), accurate determination of disease. This discus- Finland (anthophyllite), Italy (chrysotile), South sion focuses on the “low end of exposure,” Africa (amosite, chrysotile, and crocidolite), the however defined (see next section), which adds United States of America (chrysotile and tremo- its own difficulties. lite), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (chrysotile)” (UICC, 1965; Selikoff & Churg, 1965). DEFINITIONS OF “ASBESTOS” The inadequate and incomplete definition Asbestos is a generic term used to identify a of “asbestos” has resulted, as noted by an IARC number of well-known silicate minerals that are Consensus panel, in “taxonomic confusion and capable of producing thin and flexible fibers lack of standardized operating definitions for when crushed. Some of these minerals were fibers.” “‘Asbestos’ is often inappropriately used of significant industrial and economic impor- as a generic, homogeneous rubric, and even tance and have been used widely. The term when an asbestos fiber type is specified, its “asbestos” has no definitive mineralogical sig- source is rarely stated” (Kane et al., 1996). nificance but is applied to several minerals, Mineral fibers, which are grouped under the which under certain circumstances crystallize rubric, have been divided in many ways, but 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 5 two are most common: regulatory definitions Diseases are very often attributed to and mineralogical definitions. Regrettably, nei- “asbestos” and not to the individual minerals ther of these definitions corresponds to the that “asbestos” defines. This has a serious effect common understanding of what “asbestos” is to upon the interpretation of the mode of action most observers, and to some degree, these two of the individual asbestos minerals in the pro- approaches sometimes contradict one another. duction of related diseases. There are other minerals that produce fibrous (“elongate”) dust particles, having similarity in variable physical Asbestos Regulatory Definitions and chemical properties to asbestos. A num- g Regulatory y definitions specify p y the subset of ber of them may produce the same diseases minerals mainlyy used in commerce, as noted as asbestos under certain conditions. A full earlier, for purposes p p y g them and of identifying discussion of these many minerals is beyond limitingg human exposure.p In addition to min- the scope of this paper, but one example eral species p identification based on chem- is erionite (fibrous zeolite), a fibrous min- istryy and crystal y structure, regulatory g y definitions eral shown to produce mesothelioma in great specify p y physical p y p parameters, g such as length excess in both human epidemiological and and width, which apply pp y to and define parti- laboratory animal studies (Baris et al., 1981; cles that meet specific counting rules. This is 1987; Sebastien et al., 1981; Maltoni et al., frequently done by identifying approved ana- 1982; Wagner et al., 1985; Kelsey et al., 1986; lytical methods, such as ISO 10312 (ISO, 1995) Simonato et al., 1989; Metintaset al., 1999; or NIOSH 7400 (NIOSH, 2003), that clearly Emri et al., 2002; Baris & Grandjean, 2006; define for the analyst which particles should Carbone et al., 2007). The mineral does occur and should not be counted. Historically, the naturally in North America, was reported to most commonly used definitions (e.g., those produce disease (Kliment et al., 2009), and is used by the Occupational Safety and Health currently under investigation by the U.S. EPA in Administration [OSHA], National Institute for some locations (Below et al., this issue). Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], and Another example is “balangeroite,” a World Health Organization [WHO]) for a reg- mineral having been described by some ulated form of “asbestos” are limited to those as “an asbestiform fibrous silicate (exhibit- structures longer than 5 μm and with a defined ing) cytotoxic and oxidative properties simi- length-to-width (aspect) ratio of 3:1 or some- lar to those exerted by crocidolite asbestos” times 5:1; rarer definitions (e.g., AHERA as (Gazzano et al., 2005). It is associated with used by the U.S. Environmental Protection chrysotile in the Italian Balangero deposit Agency [EPA]) include different length param- (Belluso & Ferraris, 1991) and is believed eters. Concentrations are sometimes specified by some to exert for chrysotile miners and in regulations; for example, some U.S. EPA reg- millers there carcinogenic effects similar to ulations exculpate samples that have less than those produced by tremolite associated with 1% asbestos mineral by weight. However, most the Québec chrysotile deposit at the orig- regulations are based on numbers of count- inal (Bell/King/Beaver/Johnson) complex in able p particles pper unit volume of air. Generallyy Thetford Mines (McDonald et al., 1997; Case the regulatory g y definitions have evolved his- et al., 1997; Case & McDonald, 2008). toricallyy for practical p reasons related to the analytical y sensitivities of the instruments used Asbestos Mineralogical Definitions in regulatory g y measurements. As such, theyy mayy include categories g that do not produce p An extensive literature exists describing the health effects or, conversely, may exclude some mineralogy of asbestos and asbestos-related that do. minerals (Speil & Leineweber, 1969; Zoltai, 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 6 B. W. CASE ET AL. 1981; Pooley, 1981, 1987; Veblen & Wylie, fibrous riebeckite rather than crocidolite, be 1993; Leake, 1997, 2004; Neuendorf et al., p used where possible). 2005, Gunter, et al., 2007). Mineralogical def- The distinction between the mineralogi- g initions appear to contradict or be confused g p is important cal groups p when consideringg the with those that are regulatory, medical or aetiologygy of asbestos-related diseases because industrial (catalogued in Lowers & Meeker, p it demonstrates that the potential of asbestos 2002). While the most useful definitions would p to produce disease is not confined to one be interdisciplinary and unchanging, it has y crystalline g p g The mineral or chemical grouping. recently been suggested that “the rigor of g biological p potential of asbestos is most likelyy established mineralogical terminology is criti- directlyy related to the abilityy of the minerals to cal to the research process and the ultimate p form fibrous dust particles, g or elongated min- understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity” p eral particles p in the parlance of the NIOSH (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2009). Inevitably Roadmap. p This capability p y to produce p fibrous though, these are anything but unchanging, p particles is inherent in the chemical compo- p particularly with respect to the classification p y sition and physical structure of the minerals of amphibole minerals (IOM, 2009, Leake, concerned and is a result of the minerals’ para- p 1997; 2004, Hawthorne & Oberti, 2007). IOM g genetic historyy or formation regime. g However, (2009) suggested in reviewing the “NIOSH it is noteworthyy that comparably p y sized (includ- Roadmap” (IOM, 2009, NIOSH, 2010) that: ingg length g and aspectp p ratio) particles p produced byy comminution of nonfibrous analogs g of the Rigor in terminology may eventually be applied asbestos minerals have not been thoroughly g y consistently in the regulatory setting. In creating a p tested for toxic potential and, unless and until new acceptable paradigm for risk assessment in this theyy are, manyy health scientists believe that area, the Roadmap should not continue the his- such analogs g need to be treated with simi- torical use of ambiguous terminology occasionally lar caution, as longg as theyy meet minimum found in some existing standards and guidelines. To ensure proper scientific terms, a modern technical q requirements g In summary, for fiber length. y “For glossary or other standard reference text, appropri- g regulatory y and health assessment purposes p p ... ate for the field of study, should be used and cited. p there is no evidence that potentially y affected For example, the American Geological Institute cells can distinguishg between ‘asbestiform’ Glossary of Geology may be appropriate for many and ‘non-asbestiform’ fibers having equivalent of the mineralogical or geological terms (Neuendorf dimensions” (Case, 1991, p. 357). et al., 2005). Other reference texts should be con- sulted for words not found in the AGI glossary or for toxicological or epidemiological terms. Words or Amphiboles1 terms that are not scientifically or technically valid should be removed from the glossary and the text. The crystal structure of amphibole min- (IOM, 2009, p. 34) erals, including the asbestiform varieties, is a double chain structure of linked SiO4 tetrahe- dra, which lie parallel to the c crystallographic The basic chemical and crystal structural axis. Pairs of double chains are bound together properties of the primary regulated asbestos with bridging cations to form a structural unit. minerals are well known to research work- The cations, which occur in the various struc- ers involved in the study of asbestos-related tural sites, differ markedly among the amphi- disease. These minerals belong to two dis- bole minerals, so much so that the current tinct mineralogical groups: chrysotile being a mineralogical classification of the members in member of the serpentine mineral group; and this mineral group is made primarily on the crocidolite, amosite, tremolite asbestos, actino- basis of the cation content of specific crys- lite asbestos, and anthophyllite asbestos being tallographic sites (Leake et al., 1997, 2004). members of the amphibole mineral group (although as noted earlier it has been recom- mended that actual mineralogical names, e.g., 1 See Pooley. (1987). 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 7 A general formula for amphiboles can be Hutchinson et al., 1975). The particular mor- written as: phology of amphibole asbestos particles is, therefore, mainly the result of the nucleation and preferential growth of crystallites in the A0−1 B2 C5 T8 O22 W2 fiber axis or c crystallographic direction. This is a feature that is often referred to in the where T is the tetrahedral site generally con- description of hand specimens of asbestos ore taining Si but also some amounts of Al, Ti, and as cross-veined or slip-veined fiber. Asbestiform Fe3+ ; C commonly contains Mg, Al, Ti, Fe, fibers can also form by in situ alteration of other and Mn; B commonly contains Ca, Mg, and minerals in the natural environment (Meeker Na; A commonly contains Na and K; and W et al., 2003). It should be noted, however, that commonly contains OH, F, and Cl. In nature a althoughg all amphibole p minerals have a similar tremendous variety of elements can be incor- chainlike crystal y structure, theyy do not all break porated into the amphibole structure, making down to form fibrous p particles with the same amphiboles an extremely diverse group with physical p y dimensions as those of the fibrous and more than 80 named species. asbestiform amphiboles. p Asbestiform amphi- p Of the most common asbestiform amphi- boles are ggeographically g p y rare in comparison to boles, crocidolite (fibrous reibeckite) is the th heir nonasbestiform analogues. their g asbestiform variety of the amphibole mineral g In general, for manyy reasons, amphibole p reibeckite that has sodium, magnesium, and minerals most frequently q y do not grow g in fibrous iron cations linking the SiO4 tetrahedral chains. or asbestiform habits. In addition, the same Amosite (fibrous cummingtonite-grunerite) is amphibole p minerals that do occur and are clas- the asbestiform variety of the amphibole solid- sified as “asbestos” can also be found as sam- solution series cummingtonite-grunerite that ples that are not fibrous or asbestiform in habit. contains magnesium and iron cations in sim- Short (<5 μm length) tremolite particles, for ilar linking sites. Tremolite asbestos and acti- example, were identified by transmission elec- nolite asbestos are amphibole minerals that tron microscopy (almost always usually in the contain calcium and form a solid-solution absence of detection of longer, thinner, asbesti- series between the magnesium- and iron- form tremolite fibers) in the majority of lungs rich end members. The iron-rich members of American schoolchildren examined (Case of these calcic amphiboles are actinolite and et al., 1994). ferro-actinolite. Anthophyllite asbestos contains g single Larger g amphibole p y crystals can also mainly magnesium with varying amounts of break readilyy alongg certain p planes p parallel to iron in its structure. Single specimens of each y g p the c crystallographic axis, resultingg in the of the amphibole minerals are often con- formation of a good g p prismatic cleavageg that sidered to be part of a larger solid-solution readilyy produces p elongated g p particles that are series (Hawthorne & Oberti, 2007). The cations not fibrous or asbestiform. These particles p located in the various structural sites of the have often been referred to in the asbestos amphibole minerals help define their crystal communityy as cleavage g fragments. g Note that structures and their unit cell parameters. All p these particles p are produced byy breaking, g not of the amphiboles that have been observed byy growth g as are the fibrous and asbesti- to grow in the fibrous habit have a mono- p form amphibole p particles. Some regulations g clinic crystal symmetry with the exception of p (OSHA, 1992) specifically y exclude cleavage g p y anthophyllite, which is orthorhombic. g fragments from asbestos countingg rules even The elongate g p particles p produced byy the thoughg manyy cleavage g fragments g actuallyy meet asbestiform amphibole p minerals are consid- the countingg rule requirements. q OSHA (1992) ered to be generated g byy the splitting p g of also acknowledges g that it is commonlyy not pos- p weaklyy bound crystallites y or fibrils away from g sible to distinguish g cleavage single g fragments g an aggregate or bundle (Franco et al., 1970; from asbestiform fibers during analysis and 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 8 B. W. CASE ET AL. p provides gguidance to the analysty that “when in Chemically, chrysotile is a simple magnesium doubt count.” Since the 1992 OSHA rulemak- silicate with a ratio of three magnesium cations ingg regarding g g cleavage g fragments, g considerable to two silicon atoms. However, iron, nickel, debate has occurred in the asbestos commu- and manganese can replace magnesium in the nityy regarding g g the ppotential toxicityy of long, g thin brucite layer, and aluminum can also replace cleavage g fragments. g NIOSH (NIOSH, 2010; silicon in small amounts. Traces of chromium, IOM, 2009) still considers amphibole p cleav- cobalt, scandium, and the alkali earth metals are g fragments age g that meet countingg requirements q also often incorporated in the brucite layer in potentiallyy toxic and advises that they not be p place of magnesium (Morgan & Holmes, 1971). excluded during analysis. The other serpentine minerals lizardite and antigorite cannot be chemically distinguished from chrysotile. These other serpentine min- Serpentines erals normally occur as massive fine-grained The only serpentine mineral classified as specimens but can be found in a fibrous form asbestos is chrysotile. However, it is not the that yields particles that more closely resemble only mineral in the serpentine group that can particles of the amphibole asbestos minerals. occur in a fibrous form. Mineralogical studies The serpentine minerals lizardite and antig- of chrysotile samples (Whittaker, 1956a, 1956b, orite are far more common geologically than 1956c; Yada, 1967) showed it to be a sheet sil- chrysotile, which occurs in serpentine rocks icate, the sheet structure of which is curled either in cross-veined or slip fiber formations. into a cylindrical scroll-like form apparently The chrysotile fiber from cross-veined forma- around a central capillary. The sheet struc- tions is more highly prized for its fiber length ture of chrysotile is similar to that of the clay and purity. mineral kaolinite, with magnesium rather than aluminum in its structure. The structure is com- posed of a layer of linked SiO4 tetrahedra with Characteristics of Asbestos Dust all three oxygens at the base of each tetrahe- Particles dra being shared. The second half of the sheet, There exists a great diversity in the size the “brucite” layer, is attached at the apex of and morphology of dust particles produced the tetrahedral. This layer contains magnesium, from the various asbestos-related minerals. The oxygen, and hydroxyl ions octahedrally coor- most significant differences are those between dinated, with oxygen being shared between the dust particles liberated from the serpentine the brucite and silica layers. Due to a mis- asbestos chrysotile and the amphibole varieties match in the dimensions of the brucite and silica of fibrous and asbestiform minerals. In gen- layers, an extensive two-dimensional sheetlike eral, the fibrous amphiboles have fibers, which structure can only be obtained by curvature are often rigid and parallel-sided. These fibers of the sheet with the brucite layer outermost. have a quadrilateral or polygonal cross sec- This is the reason for the scroll-like structure tion, with variable size distributions of width to of chrysotile and the production of concen- length ratios that are dependent upon the min- tric cylindrical tubes that we know as chrysotile eral type and its geological source. Amphibole fibrils. When chrysotile fibrils are formed, a par- asbestos mineral from sources of a commer- ticular radius of curvature may be the most cial grade produce dust containing fibers that stable so that the diameter of fibrils, whatever are longer and finer than fibers from any other their source geographically, is approximately the sources. A characteristic feature of the dust pro- same, being of the order of 30 nm. The mis- duced by amphibole asbestos minerals from match in the structure of serpentine mineral different geological sources is that they will con- can be accommodated in other ways, which sist of fibers with a distinct size distribution of have resulted in the formation of the other fiber diameters. This distinction in fiber size serpentine minerals, lizardite, and antigorite. characteristics does not apply to variations in 202404121921 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 04:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 ASBESTOS DEFINITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 9 fiber length distributions of commercial-grade Council’s recent review of the NIOSH roadmap asbestos, which are more closely related to the for research on asbestos fibers: mechanical treatment that the mineral sample These changes g in mineral names far outpace p the may have received in the production of the abilityy of the rulemakingg and legislative g p processes dust. Fibrous amphibole samples can, there- in the United States and have caused considerable fore, be found with identical chemistry and confusion and misunderstanding, g as is evident in atomic structure but with a diversity of crys- recent legal g actions relatingg to asbestos contamina- tion in Libby,y Montana. [In addition], the correct talline form or growth habit. This variation application pp p of IMA amphibole nomenclature . . . in crystal habit of a given species is almost requires q analytical y p precision and accuracyy that is certainly due to variations in the conditions ggenerallyy beyond y the capability p y of the standard under which it crystallized. The morphology of asbestos analysis y methods used for exposurep assess- chrysotile asbestos dust particles is distinctive ment purposes. p p p This presents difficulties for the